Read what I wrote above. 64bit is the industry standard for a single memory dram channel. Since WiiU has four 16bit wide ddr3 chips, this means a single memory controller. Font end to dram, we don't know what happens behind the controller. It would be foolish to use 2 channels (at 32bit wide), because that would only incease transistor costs.

Again, the edram is a FRAME BUFFER for the GPU. It requires a much bigger size than XBox because it has to simultaneously hold (at least) two 1080p frames and two tablet frames.

yes and no, the WiiU's chip is a SOC with all cpu,gpu and edram memory bandwidth all on the same die. the Speed may be slower but since everything is on the single die, than thats going to be less of a problem with connection throughput with off chip functions i/o, the panasonic  video chip etc.

No. the CPU is not on the same chip carrier as the GPU/eDram (as per Nintendo image of the mainboard posted 1-2 weeks ago).

lol

Thank you. Fixed.

Don't care about numbers or eDRAM or anything like that. I just want to see more comparisons with games like Batman and Black Ops 2. All the hidden technical jargon is moot imo.

and you have documentation for this I assume?

With the Gamecube the GPU had 3MB of built in memory, 2MB of which was dedicated to frame buffers while the other 1MB was used as a texture cache; the Flipper supported (up to) 9 to 1 texture compression, which allowed (in many cases) the Gamecube to have up to (about) 3 Million texels in memory (or roughly 6 texels for every pixel they rendered).

Why would Nintendo take an approach with the Gamecube that worked so well, roughly emulate it with the Wii U, and ignore one of the biggest advantages it gave them?

Every post of yours generally requires the assumption that Nintendo's engineers are incompetent morons, my assumption is that their design philosophy is different than Microsoft and Sony. It is likely that they have enough edram on their CPU/GPU that, when used appropriately, far less data is being transferred across the bus to really need super fast memory; and this would likely explain earlier comments from developers praising the memory architecture, and I would expect that once you cached textures memory bandwith isn't a bottleneck on the Wii U like it is on the XBox 360 or PS3.

Yes. Every computer ever built by any engineer. Of course Nintendo SOFTWARE engineers use caching techniques wherever possible in whatever way possible. In case you did not notice, this is a thread about HARDWARE, not software.

UMM yes it is ..IT IS INDEED A MCM

HERE YA GO

This time we fully embraced the idea of using an MCM for our gaming console. An MCM is where the aforementioned Multi-core CPU chip and the GPU chip¹⁰ are built into a single component. The GPU itself also contains quite a large on-chip memory. Due to this MCM, the package costs less and we could speed up data exchange among two LSIs while lowering power consumption. And also the international division of labor in general, would be cost-effective.

http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/console/0/0

So the Gamecube and Wii didn't use 1MB of their 3MB on GPU memory as a texture cache?

In modern times hardware developers produce firmware, drivers and hardware abstraction layers over their hardware to be used by software developers to ensure that the hardware is used as efficiently as possible and to drastically simplify the process of producing hardware. OpenGL and Direct3D are the most well known hardware abstrating 3D APIs in the world, Nintendo (for obvious reasons) will develop a hardware abstraction layer compatible with OpenGL and will expose optimizations and unique hardware features using OpenGL extensions.

The fact that you don't understand this demonstrates that you don't know enough to have an informed opinion on the Wii U's hardware architecture

Wii U =

360 = 

PS3 = 

Wii =